No Due Process For Enemy Combatants

Wall St Journal ^ | August 26, 2002 | ROBERT F. TURNER

[SJackson]

A distinguished American Bar Association task force and countless newspaper editorials have asked why U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, also known as Abdullah al Mujahir, is not being given the full panoply of Sixth Amendment rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Instead, he is being held at a South Carolina military base without being charged with a crime, without access to an attorney, and with no apparent prospect of a public trial by a jury of his peers. The perception that the government has discarded the Constitution in its eagerness to prevent terrorism threatens to undermine the public support that is essential if we are to prevail in the current crisis, and the Padilla matter needs to be better understood.

[lepton]

But the Supreme Court held as early as 1800, in Bas v. Tingy, that Congress could "authorize war" by joint resolution without framing it as a formal declaration of war. Last Sept. 14, Congress did precisely that by a combined vote of 516-1.

O.K., that's the case-name.

[madvlad]

As The Duke once said:

"Out here, due process is a bullet!"

Mad Vlad

[jwalsh07]

Remarkably enough enough that was also George Washingtons take on the matter as regarded spies and saboteurs. A quick tribunal in the field followed by a bullet to the head.

[sandmanbr]

4th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; is the pretext used to hold an American citizen without due process. Apparently the US Supreme Court has agreed in several cases. Does that make it Constitutional?

I read the Amendment and then read that in 1909 the USSC rules that it is constitutional for the Gov. of Colorado to detain an accused insurrection leader indefinitly without charges. Does their ruling make it right?

If the Supreme Court agrees with the 9th Circuit Court that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional does that make it so?

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In response to that pesky 6th Amendment they just don't charge him.

Read the 4th and 6th Amendment and decide for yourself what it says. While you're at it read the 2nd Amendment and the 1st, 5th et al.

My cousin returning from his hunting camp was stopped and his vehicle searched.His gun was cased under the back jumpseat with a weekend supply of dirty hunting clothes on top. He had a spotlight in his toolbox in the bed of his pickup. He was arrested for spotlighting deer and his truck seized. The charges were dropped but they kept his truck and wouldn't give it back unless he paid them the equivalent of the equity he had in the truck.

The judge in the case ruled that while the State had established a mechanism for seizing property they had not established a mechanism for returning property and until they did they could keep the vehicle. Did that ruling make it right?